1887
image of Creativity in collaborative poetry translating
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines how creative solutions to translation problems are negotiated and selected in ‘poettrios’ (teams consisting of a source poet, a target-language poet and a bilingual language mediator working from pre-prepared, literal translation drafts of poems), and compares creativity in this mode to that in solo poetry translating ( ). The interactions and outputs taken from real-time recordings, work-in-progress drafts and participant interviews from several poettrios translating original poems from English into Dutch and from Dutch into English in two workshops were coded and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. The results show that creativity in poetry translating is an eminently cognitive activity in which creative solutions typically emerge through the incremental contributions of the complementary expertises of the individual poettrio members, with occasional radical leaps. In this incremental scaffolding process, and similarly to solo translating, poettrios first consider non-creative options, then creative adjustments and, finally, creative transformations. Radical solutions are generally only accepted when a departure from the source-text surface meaning is deemed necessary to achieve the double aim of retaining the source poem’s message while producing an acceptable poem in the target culture ( ).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.20087.lob
2020-07-07
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acar, Selcuk, Cyndi Burnett, and John F. Cabra
    2017 “Ingredients of Creativity: Originality and More.” Creativity Research Journal29 (2): 133–144. 10.1080/10400419.2017.1302776
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1302776 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfer, Alexa
    2017 “Entering the Translab: Translation as Collaboration, Collaboration as Translation, and the Third Space of ‘Translaboration’.” InTranslaboration, edited byAlexa Alfer, special issue ofTranslation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts3 (3): 275–290. 10.1075/ttmc.3.3.01alf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.3.01alf [Google Scholar]
  3. Beylard-Ozeroff, Ann, Jana Králová, and Barbara Moser-Mercer
    1998 “Introduction.” InTranslators’ Strategies and Creativity, edited byAnn Beylard-Ozeroff, Jana Králová, and Barbara Moser-Mercer, xi–xiii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.27 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chesterman, Andrew
    1997Memes of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.22 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cranfield, Steven, and Claudio Tedesco
    2017 “Reformulating the Problem of Translatability: A Case of Literary Translaboration with the Poetry of Francisco Brines.” InTranslaboration, edited byAlexa Alfer, special issue ofTranslation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts3 (3): 304–322. 10.1075/ttmc.3.3.03cra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.3.03cra [Google Scholar]
  6. Dryden, John
    1680/2006 “From Preface to Ovid’s Epistles.” InTranslation – Theory and Practice: A Historical Reader, edited byDaniel Weissbort and Astradur Eysteinsson, 145–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fontanet, Mathilde
    2005 “Temps de créativité en traduction.” Meta50 (2): 432–447. 10.7202/010992ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/010992ar [Google Scholar]
  8. Gilson, Lucy L., and Nora Madjar
    2011 “Radical and Incremental Creativity: Antecedents and Processes.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts5 (1): 21–28. 10.1037/a0017863
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017863 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gray, Barbara
    1989Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Heiden, Tanja
    2005 “Blick in die Black Box: Kreative Momente im Übersetzungsprozess: Eine experimentelle Studie mit Translog.” Meta50 (2): 448–472. 10.7202/010993ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/010993ar [Google Scholar]
  11. Holmes, James S.
    1988Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hughes, Ted
    1989 “Postscript to János Csokits’ Note.” InTranslating Poetry: The Double Labyrinth, edited byDaniel Weissbort, 16–34. London: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑10089‑7_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10089-7_3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Jaussi, Kimberly S., Alexander R. Knights, and Alka Gupta
    2017 “Feeling Good, Being Intentional, and Their Relationship to Two Types of Creativity at Work.” Creativity Research Journal29 (4): 377–386. 10.1080/10400419.2017.1376498
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1376498 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jones, Francis R.
    2011Poetry Translating as Expert Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.93
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.93 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jones-Teuben, Hanneke Maria
    2013‘I Disagree with Myself!’: Creative Thinking in a Key Stage 1 Community of Enquiry. PhD diss.Newcastle University.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Keeley, Edmund
    2000On Translation: Reflections and Conversations. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kunitz, Stanley, and Daniel Weissbort
    1989 “Translating Anna Akhmatova: A Conversation with Stanley Kunitz.” InTranslating Poetry: The Double Labyrinth, edited byDaniel Weissbort, 107–124. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑10089‑7_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10089-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  18. Moran, Seana, and Vera John-Steiner
    2004 “How Collaboration in Creative Work Impacts Identity and Motivation.” InCollaborative Creativity: Contemporary Perspectives, edited byDorothy Miell and Karen Littleton, 11–25. London: Free Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nord, Christiane
    2001 “Loyalty Revisited: Bible Translation as a Case in Point.” InThe Return to Ethics, edited byAnthony Pym, special issue ofThe Translator7 (2): 185–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. NVivo
    NVivo 2019NVivo Version 12 Pro. Chadstone, Victoria: QSR International.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. O’Brien, Sharon
    2011 “Collaborative Translation.” InHandbook of Translation Studies, Volume2, edited byYves Gambier and Luc Van Doorslaer, 17–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.2.col1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.col1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Paterson, Don
    2006Orpheus: A Version of Rainer Maria Rilke. London: Faber and Faber.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Raffel, Burton
    1988The Art of Translating Poetry. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sampson, Fiona
    2012 “Creative Translation.” InThe Cambridge Companion to Creative Writing, edited byDavid Morley and Philip Nielsen, 118–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CCOL9780521768498.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521768498.010 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sawyer, Keith
    2007Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Schwimmer, Marina
    2017 “Beyond Theory and Practice: Towards an Ethics of Translation.” Ethics and Education12 (1): 51–61. 10.1080/17449642.2016.1270727
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2016.1270727 [Google Scholar]
  27. Searle, Rosalind H.
    2004 “Creativity and Innovation in Teams.” InCollaborative Creativity: Contemporary Perspectives, edited byDorothy Miell and Karen Littleton, 175–188. London: Free Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sternberg, Robert J., and Todd I. Lubart
    1999 “The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms.” InHandbook of Creativity, edited byRobert J. Sternberg, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Stockwell, Peter
    2002Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wallas, Graham
    1926/2014The Art of Thought. Tunbridge Wells: Solis.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ward, Thomas B., Steven M. Smith, and Ronald A. Finke
    1999 “Creative Cognition.” InHandbook of Creativity, edited byRobert J. Sternberg, 189–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Weissbort, Daniel
    2004From Russian with Love: Joseph Brodsky in English. London: Anvil.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wood, David, Jerome S. Brunner, and Gail Ross
    1976 “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.” Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology17 (2): 89–100. 10.1111/j.1469‑7610.1976.tb00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Yong, Kevyn, Stephen J. Sauer, and Elizabeth A. Mannix
    2014 “Conflict and Creativity in Interdisciplinary Teams.” Small Group Research45 (3): 266–289. 10.1177/1046496414530789
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414530789 [Google Scholar]
  35. Zwischenberger, Cornelia
    2016 “On Why ‘Translaboration’ is Synonymous with Transdisciplinarity and What This Means for Us.” Paper presented atTranslab workshop, University of Westminster, London, September 12.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.20087.lob
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.20087.lob
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: translation processes; translation strategies; creativity; poetry
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error